"But why wait for your STATE to secede?" ~ Excerpted from the YouTube I Hereby Secede by Roger Young

"Your STATE", unless its sole function is to protect its members' natural rights, (amongst which are the rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property, together with the right to defend and protect them), is no better than it's franchisor, the corporation known as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Since we all know that "your STATE" is not restricted to its one proper duty, one should not "wait" for it to secede, one should, IMO, secede from it coevally.

"I...do solemnly publish and declare, this Man is, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent, that he is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States, and any and all States under the authority of the United States, and that all political connection between him and the aforementioned States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Man, I have full Power to Arm and Protect Myself, my Loved Ones, and my justly acquired Possessions, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Trade, Possess Land, Travel Freely and to do all other Acts and Things which Free and Independent Men may of right do." ~ Excerpted from my Declaration of Independence/Notice of Secession

I have concluded that the safest and surest "Declaration of Independence/Formal Notice of Secession" is one loosely based on the formal notice of secession used by the original thirteen colonies, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America[1]. I came to this conclusion because in order for the United States, (and it's subsidiary governments), to not "legally recognize" this formal notice of secession it would simultaneously be refusing to "legally recognize" its own formal notice of secession, which would be tantamount[2] to denying its own legal existence.
________________________________________________________________________________

[1] "The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession."~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University

Forgive me gentelmen, but I believe this is nothing more than poppy cock

I agree with the statement and also disagree with the statement. When two or more people come together for for a united purpose there will be a formal or informal declaration on purpose. This declaration of purpose will result in some form of common agreement either understood, or written down. At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content. Because like it or not you are bound to the document unless you perfer to be childish about it and take your toys home and not play, all of which you may not have a legal obligation to do.

Now the Declaration of Independance was written a long time ago; and agreeably we could or should concede that it was or is a binding document on those individuals at that time and at the expiration of each individual of that agreement would at some point become null and void. Since it has not become null and void, but has become a tradition and cultural investment it seems to bind all generations to that contract--it has evolved into becoming an Axiom. Fir a hand full of people to attempt to divest this document seems to be futile as it persists in being engraved on the conscious of every American citizen. The same reasoning applies to the Constitution. Now, technically the Constitution should protect American Citizens. If it were given a true chance, rather than legislators doing everything possible to subvert and circumvent the Constitution it just might perform as it was written. The legislators, over time, have just gone from hateful to down right nasty when it comes to the Constitution.

I am a nubie here and am still learning. So if you want to criticize my comments you are perfectly clear to do so, but at least do it with decency and respect. Hurting my feelings will achieve no end by violating the fundamental creed of libertarianism, anarchism and voluntarism.

I believe the Constitution can perform perfectly. It is not the constitution that is the problem, it is the people who circumvent the Constitution, judges who force meaning out of it where it takes a queer style of logic to do so like the recent ruling on obama care. The Constitution was not designed as a Progressive Socialistic Marksest doctrine.

I am more than happy to take a Personal Message of education, so if you feel so inclined to do so I would be delighted to hear from you and give serious considerations as to where you believe that i am wrong

We push with statements, we lead with questions. That being true, here is my first question.

You wrote: "When two or more people come together for for a united purpose there will be a formal or informal declaration on purpose. This declaration of purpose will result in some form of common agreement either understood, or written down. At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content."

Even assuming that a "formal declaration" is "some form of common agreement", whom does it become "binding" on, the signatories[1], or their posterity?

If you would prefer to discuss this privately, that is fine with me.
______________________________________________________

[1]signatorynoun (plural) -ries a person who has signed a document such as a treaty or contract or an organization, state, etc, on whose behalf such a document has been signed

Thomas apparently believed that with a de jure government, lawful freedoms remain unabridged.

This is so because lawful authority is "delegated" by the author(s), not "ceded[1]". To understand this better, let us take it to a smaller level. If a man, acting as SHERIFF, delegates some of his authority, (which authority, by the way was delegated to him by those choosing to pay for his services), to his DEPUTIES, has he "lost" any of his freedom to act as a SHERIFF?
______________________________________________________

[1] ...2. To relinquish and grant; as, to cede all claims to a disputed right... Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English

Great. Thanks. The more I get the more I learn. I shall take this to heart as it seems to be founded upon sound logical principles. Just remember I am a new seed planted. If you use weed killer on me I shall die and never have the chance to bear fruit. Thanks!

Constitutions, declarations of "independence", Magna Carta type documents have been a dime a dozen in history all the way back to Attila the Hun and before. All are illusory in nature.

They were in use long before a relatively recent bank robbery in Sweden gave rise to the term, "Stockholm Syndrome". which describes the conquerors' ability to lull the conquered into a state of servility and adulation toward "Our-Founding-Fathers" and the senators, legislators and presidents of the hour. Unlike earlier Barbaric hordes who raped and murdered all the inhabitants, later kings understood the value of keeping the conquered proletariat in place and producing -- a "tax base".

Those kings became Our-Great-Leaders, and the serfs became Our-Great-Nation.

Eventually the genius of "democracy" -- allowing certain of the conquered to join the ranks of the conquerors opened the door to vast empires. Then "elections" of sorts, sustaining the illusion of "participatory government".

That's why, although a firm believer in "secession" -- or declaring oneself sovereign and free -- I'm not a proponent of emulating the white man's "documents". I don't need a formal declaration to be sovereign. I just need to quit whining and wringing my hands over "our leaders" and their proclivity to quash all the illusory "documents" to achieve their goals of robbing the conquered of all their production. I stay out of their line of fire whenever possible, and never voluntarily "file" any documents on their behalf.

I may indeed live long enough to see vast numbers of my compatriots come to enlightenment in regards to their past slavery and to Abstain From Beans.

"If every man has the right [lawful authority] to defend - even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right [lawful authority] to organize [constitute] and support a common force to protect these rights [just claims] constantly. Thus the principle of collective right [lawful authority] - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right [lawful authority]. And the common force that protects this collective right[lawful authority]cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual [without just cause], then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups [without just cause]." ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat [Emphasis and bracketed information added]

That would be called, I believe, a de jure government, a government of properly delegated authority. Would you say that such agreements are "illusory in nature"?

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

I had no input to any "constitution", nor did I participate in a "declaration of independence", as put forth by any group, whether presuming to act in my behalf or for the benefit of others. Any statement or inference to the contrary is illusory.

As further clarification, based upon Bastiat's ideas (and they are HIS ideas -- not cannon law) I and a number of my neighbors could (legitimately) form a common defense force to protect our joint properties. Once my sons or daughters inherited this property s/he would need to "sign on" for whatever "declaration" had been jointly agreed to, as would the successors of the other signers.

There are two cautions I would advance to this "group defense force":

1) There is always the tendency for individuals in groups to form sociopathic "cliques" which could sully the original common goals of protection from outside incursions. That's why I tend to resist partnerships and corporate agreements whenever practicable. In any case I would insist upon an "exit" clause wherein any signer could at any time elect to leave the group without repercussion.

2) Since the white man surrounding my properties (even though I live in what many deem a predominantly "black" neighborhood, for what that's worth) has naturally and predictably morphed into a militarized police state, I have no illusions they might and probably would descend upon me with swat-like forces beyond the capability of any neighborhood group defense force to hold at bay. They are known to shoot your dog and your kids if one of their "force" deems necessary -- without probable cause. Neighborhood "defense forces" could and probably would attract these vultures, so you might as well plan your own defense strategy and leave groups out of the equation.

"...I presume that that is a typo, Sam, and what you meant was "canon law"..

As we've discussed in the past, I'm a classic case of mixed-up schoolmaster: On the one hand I'm technologically challenged (thankfully you patiently showed me enough about html, for instance, to get me by on that score); on the other I'm technologically dependent. I've picked up the sloppy mental habit of depending totally upon "spellcheck", and 3rd grade words elude me -- especially double "L" 's and "N" 's, etc.

Sometimes the culprit is typo (although one skill I've retained is that of being a somewhat talented typist); but most often it is abject carelessness. If my computer doesn't "redline" a word as I type along, it stays -- right or wrong.

In this case you are right about the word usage, except instead of "typo" it will have to stand as "carelessness", and I thank you for the gentle correction.

"Sounds good and reasonable to me. I would probably agree to such a document with the stipulation that at any time one goes afoul of it they would automatically be ejected from the agreement." ~ Glock27

More importantly, as Samarami pointed out, be certain that it contains a "secession clause" whereby any member may peacefully withdraw from membership in the group, at any time, for any reason.

Glock27, have you seen this?

"The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession."~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University

Oh, and would you want to be bound by a Constitution that said something like this, "...ALL TREATIES MADE or WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND...

Supremacy clause. ...all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the “supreme law of the land” and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provisions of a State constitution or law." ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1005